Difference between revisions of "Talk:Beluaterra/Fourth Age"
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
While we are at this, can we please please PLEASE avoid being as uncreative and boring as using the great war name for the one millionth time? --[[User:Bishamon Family|Ethan Lee Vita]] [[User talk:Bishamon Family|(Talk)]], Editor and Community Manager 08:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | While we are at this, can we please please PLEASE avoid being as uncreative and boring as using the great war name for the one millionth time? --[[User:Bishamon Family|Ethan Lee Vita]] [[User talk:Bishamon Family|(Talk)]], Editor and Community Manager 08:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Pathetic how everyone's undoing my work to spew forth such horrible propaganda. My versions were no doubt biased as in they focused on one part of the story, but it wasn't made-up bullcrap, it wasn't trying to mislead or twist the truth. Most of these corrections are the "giving a full account" type I would have expected, it's simply removing a valid version of the events by total bullcrap. And from a Dev too? Sad, Delvin, really freaking sad. As for the war in the south, I used the " " for a reason. "Delvin's War" is an obviously biased name, but it's also the *only* name used to refer to the war. -[[User:Chénier|Chénier]] 22:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 00:27, 29 July 2009
Personal Versions of History
No doubt the way that things happened will be viewed differently by different people. Let's not get into various biased accounts of events. Try and keep this page as factual as possible. If necessary, add an infobox or something, with your on personal, alternative version of events, and tag it as such. There's nothing wrong with having multiple versions, so long as we know where they come from. That way people can judge for themselves as to which version they can believe. --Indirik (talk), Editor (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've attempted to clean it up a bit. It certainly was a bit anti-Riombaran biased in the bit about the south... though it seems to me that Danaris maybe overdid his revisions. I have edited it to try and limit weasel words (probably missed several), and, where possible, present both views. Unfortunately the reality of that war is such that every issue has two very different and important sides... as the war is entirely about a theoretical and abstract issue of "sovereignty." Thus choice of words becomes exceptionally important. Whatever the case, my revision certainly isn't perfect, and certainly is wordy... but hopefully it is an improvement. Vellos 03:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
While we are at this, can we please please PLEASE avoid being as uncreative and boring as using the great war name for the one millionth time? --Ethan Lee Vita (Talk), Editor and Community Manager 08:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Pathetic how everyone's undoing my work to spew forth such horrible propaganda. My versions were no doubt biased as in they focused on one part of the story, but it wasn't made-up bullcrap, it wasn't trying to mislead or twist the truth. Most of these corrections are the "giving a full account" type I would have expected, it's simply removing a valid version of the events by total bullcrap. And from a Dev too? Sad, Delvin, really freaking sad. As for the war in the south, I used the " " for a reason. "Delvin's War" is an obviously biased name, but it's also the *only* name used to refer to the war. -Chénier 22:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
